I disagreed with most of it, and actually I think that the basic premise expresses a very nefarious and misguided opinion, but almost at the end, it gets to an

I disagreed with most of it, and actually I think that the basic premise expresses a very nefarious and misguided opinion, but almost at the end, it gets to an interesting observation: > Just as it seems that teenage smoking can't be reduced much without giving teenagers good substitute ways to show their independence and worldliness, the social costs of mistaken beliefs about politics and UFOs probably can't be reduced much without giving people good substitute ways to show their concern and independence. But it is hard to create substitutes for things before you understand in some detail the functions they now perform. I think it is wrong to accept that beliefs are just fashion or identity facets with no other connection with reality or facts and that this should be fought. That said, the article proposes an angle that can be used to limit the damage of the most insane beliefs. However, I think that fighting propaganda with propaganda is not sustainable nor democratic. The core solution is not in designing warm bikinis but in convincing arctic fashionistas that it is ok to not wear a bikini on the ice-sheet.